Agefi Luxembourg - mars 2025

AGEFI Luxembourg 38 Mars 2025 Droit / Emploi Par Stéphanie HENG (portrait), politologue et experte en communication et Alban de La SOUDIERE, po- lytechnicien, fonctionnaire international émérite N ous sommes régulièrement et massivement alertés sur les dangers de «traces» de pro- duits chimiques potentiellement dan- gereux dans l’eau et les aliments que nous consommons. L’une des der- nières campagnes de peur de ce type porte sur le cadmium, un métal lourd, et les précédentes nous ont noyés d’informations sur les fameux PFASdits «pol- luants éternels», ainsi bien sûr que sur les pesticides. Bienévidemmentcertainsdecesproduitssont dangereux,mais nous vivons dans des pays ultra-ré- glementésoùlesrisquesrésiduelssontdéjàtrèsfaibles. L’Union européenne dispose d’outils comme la Di- rective REACH (qui s’applique à la plupart des pro- duits chimiques) et l’Autorité européennede sécurité des aliments (EFSA), et plusieurs pays ont leurs pro- pres organismes comme l’Agence nationale de sécu- rité sanitaire (Anses) en France ou l’Agence fédérale pour la sécurité de la chaîne alimentaire (AFSCA) en Belgique.Cescampagnesdepeursontparfoisexagé- réesetmêmesuspectes.Examinonsdeplusprèslecas des pesticides et de campagnes récentes, l’une affir- mantqu’ilsontunrôledirectdansl’augmen- tation du nombre de cancers du pancréas, et l’autre affirmant que des résidus «dan- gereux»seraientprésentsdanslamoitiéou plus des fruits et légumes. Des campagnes au caractère scientifique discutable Cesdeuxcampagness’appuientsurdes «études» qui ont été relayées par de nombreux médias. Or, le caractère scientifique de ces études est forte- ment discutable, avec peu voire aucune publication dans de véritables magazines scienti- fiques avec peer review (revue parlespairs),etaétéeffective- ment contesté par des orga- nismes beaucoup plus sérieux dont l’Association française pour l’information scientifique (Afis, www.afis.org ). L’étude concernant le cancer du pancréas, par exem- ple, ignore des contradictions significatives dans les données présentées en ce qui concerne l’incidence géographique (par rapport aux régions déjà connues comme ayant un taux de cancers du pancréas plus élevéquelamoyenne)oul’incidencesociale(bizarre- mentlesagriculteurs,plusexposésauxpesticidesque le reste de la population, sont moins sujets au cancer dupancréas). L’étude sur les résidusdangereuxdans les fruits et légumes s’intéresse quant à elle très peu aux doses (les «traces» trouvées ne sont pas dange- reuses selon lesorganismesofficiels, et de toute façon les «limites maximales de résidus» (LMR) pour la commercialisation sont elles-mêmes très inférieures, souventd’unfacteur100,auxseuils«toxicologiques») et, de façon étrange, ne s’intéresse qu’aux fruits et lé- gumes «nonbios». Ce dernier point relève vraisemblablement d’un conflit d’intérêts évident mais non explicite : l’étude vientd’uneassociationdéclaréeofficiellementcomme représentant la filière bio et qui reçoit des finance- ments de ses entreprises (Biocoop, Bjorg, Naturalia, etc.). La présidente de l’association dirigerait une en- treprise du bio et serait administratrice du syndicat des entreprises françaises dubio. Le bio est-ilmeilleur pour la santé ? L’agriculturebiologiquenous est régulièrement ven- due comme étant meilleure pour la santé. C’est très subjectif et nous n’entrerons pas ici dans les débats surlegoûtouladiététique.Forceestdeconstater(cfr. supra) que les défenseurs du bio hésitent de moins enmoins àutiliserdesprocédésde lobbying, dedés- information parfois et de méthodes très peu scienti- fiques pour tenter de nous en convaincre. Ce qui est sûr aussi c’est que pour la sécurité alimentaire le bio estlargementaussidangereuxquelenonbio,comme l’ont illustré par exemple le cas des graines germées venant d’une ferme bio enAllemagne (nombreuses victimesdanstoutel’Europeen2011)ouencorelecas de botulisme dans des conserves de sardines d’un restaurant bio à Bordeaux (2023). Concernant spéci- fiquement les pesticides, la filière bio préférerait s’en passertotalementmaisadûserendreàl’évidence:si onrefuselespesticides,onauralapeste!Lafilièreuti- lise donc tout demême des pesticidesmais…natu- rels.Dontacte,maisceux-cisonttoutaussidangereux pour la santé par définition étymologique («cide» vient d’un verbe latin signifiant «tuer»). Pourtant, comme on l’a vu, l’étude récente dénonçant les rési- dus de pesticides dans les fruits et légumes ne s’inté- resse qu’au non bio et aux pesticides venant de l’industrie chimique. Desméthodes questionnables Lesdéfenseursdubio,souspressioncesdernièresan- nées car la nourriture bio a plus de mal à se vendre, se sont malheureusement mis à utiliser les piresmé- thodes, tentant de jouer sur la peur et la désinforma- tion pour détourner les consommateurs du non bio. Le bio est soumis aux mêmes règles de sécurité ali- mentaire que le non bio, et ses «qualités» vraies ou supposées ne lui donnent pas de privilège, encore moins celui de tromper le consommateur. Le bio se vante souvent de ses rendements non industriels, mais il y a un revers évident à cette médaille : le bio demandeplusdesurfaceagricoleetfavorisedonc… ladéforestation!Sanscompterqu’ilnepeuttoutsim- plement pas, même avec encore plus de déforesta- tion, suffire à nourrir la population mondiale au niveau où elle est arrivée au 21 ème siècle. Lesauteurss’exprimentàtitrepersonnel. Pesticides : les défenseurs du bio nous désinforment-ils ? By Emilien LEBAS, Partner, Head of International Tax, Tax controversy & dispute resolution leader & Valentine PLATEAU, Manager, International Tax, KPMGLuxembourg O n 5 February 2025, the Luxem- bourg administrative Tribunal ( Tribunal administratif, 5 février 2024, n°47856 ) (the “administrative Tribunal” or the “Tribunal”) reclarified certainproce- dural aspects regarding the filing of administrative claims on a provisional tax assess- ment (1) issuedby the Luxem- bourg tax authorities (“LTA”). Summary of the case In the case at hand, a corporate taxpayer filed its 2016 tax return for which the LTA issued provisional tax assessmentsbasedon§100aoftheLuxembourgGen- eral Tax Law (2) ( Abgabenordnung, “ AO ”) a few years later, in June 2021. Uponreceivingthem,thetaxpayerrealizedthatithad usedthewrongdatainitstaxreturn(i.e.,bydefinition, the provisional tax assessments accurately reflected the information the taxpayer had provided in its tax return), and therefore decided to file a first adminis- trative claim ( réclamation ) on 6 July 2021 with the Di- rector of the LTA to contest those tax assessments. Asecond claimagainst the tax assessmentswas sub- mitted shortly after on 22 July 2021, probably due to someproceduralaspectsinthecontextoftheopening of the liquidation of the company. It is unclear whetherarectifiedtaxreturnwasalsoattachedtothis secondclaim.Finally,therectifiedtaxreturnwaselec- tronically filed months later, in October 2021. In the absence of a response fromtheDirector, the taxpayer lodged an appealwith the administrative Tribunal. Judgment of the Tribunal The first part of the judgment was dedicated to ad- dressing taxproceduralmatters, namely the verifica- tionofthevalidityoftheadministrativeclaimandthe existenceandvalidityoftherectifiedtaxreturn,while the second part wasmore oriented towards tax tech- nical aspects as the Tribunal focused on analyzing whether the initial tax return was indeed inaccurate and therefore whether the filing of a rectified return couldbe justified. Thepresentarticleonlyconcernsitselfwithanalyzing theproceduraltaxaspectsdevelopedinthejudgment andsubsequentlydiscussingthepracticalimplications theymay entail. Regarding the existence of a rectified tax return to support the claim The LTA first challenged the validity of the second administrative claim, filed on 22 July 2021, on the grounds that it did not include any rectified tax re- turn. The Tribunal sidedwith the LTAand confirmed that themeremention of the rectified tax return in the list of appendices of the claim is not sufficient to prove that the said document was actually attached. Like- wise, the administrative stamp affixed upon receipt of the claimshouldnot be interpretedas anacknowl- edgment from the LTA that all the documents al- legedlyattached to the claimwere indeedsubmitted. Thatsaid,thejudgesnonethelessrecalledthattheAO does not prescribe any specific formal requirements for a claimtobe admissible. In this regard, theTribu- nal maintained that §249(4) AO (3) should be under- stood as setting minimal formal conditions, specificallythatthewrittenclaim shouldindicatethe taxpayer’sdisagreement andrequest for a reassess- ment of its situation . Supporting documents, how- ever,donothavetobesubmittedconcomitantlywith the claimitself; theymay be provided at a later point in time, as longas theDirector has not yet completed his reviewof the claim. Noting in the case at hand thatwhile the administra- tive claim had been filed in July 2021, a rectified tax return had subsequently been electronically filed in October 2021, the judges concluded that, given the si- lencefromtheDirector,suchareturncouldeffectively be considered a supportingdocument in the claim. Regarding the validity of the rectified tax return TheTribunalthentackledthedisputeoverthevalidity oftherectifiedtaxreturnelectronicallyfiledinOctober which,accordingtotheLTA,wasnotsignedbyanau- thorizedperson. Despitethelackofclearindicationsregardingthesig- natory–sincethesignaturewashandwrittenwithout specifying the name and surname of its author – the judgesanalyzedthedocumentsprovidedbythepar- ties to verify his identity, and ultimately confirmed that the signatory had indeed been delegated the powertosigndocumentstobesubmittedtotheLTA. Regarding the possibility of filing a claim against provisional tax assessments Finally, the judges examined whether taxpayers could contest tax assessments issued under §100a AO through the filing of a claim with the Director, despite thefactthattheywereinlinewith the tax returnfiled. In that regard, the LTA sustained that, in so far as suchassessmentswereau- tomatically issued – hence presumably in line with the initially filed tax return – they couldstillpotentiallygiveriseto a subsequent deeper review by the tax office, in accordancewith §100a (2)AO. In their view, theDirector should therefore not be al- lowed to take a position inplace of the tax office. The judges, however, rejected this reasoning, invok- ing §243 (1) AO (4) which provides that once a claim has beenfiled to theDirector, the latter is required to conduct a full reassessment of the taxpayer’s situa- tion ex officio and determine its tax liability in place of the tax office. The above legal basis is further combined with the consistentpositionoftheadministrativejurisdictions (5) , reaffirmedby the judges in the case at hand,which is to consider that any tax assessments, whether provi- sionalorfinal,couldbechallengedbythetaxpayerby way of an administrative claim. Essentially, the ad- ministrative jurisdictions rule that given the absence ofanyexplicitprovisionsunder§100aAOthatwould limit taxpayers’ right of appeal, the broadest possible interpretation should be adopted. Namely, to recog- nize unrestricted access to the appeal remedies pro- vided under §228 AO, including the possibility of filing an administrative claim. Takeaways The caseunder reviewis interestingas it clarifies sev- eral keyprocedural aspects. On the one hand, the complexity of tax procedure – generally(andrightly)consideredtobeachallenging exercise–shouldnotbeunderestimated,asitnotonly requires adequate documentation and arguments to potentiallymaketheDirectorreconsiderone’staxsit- uation,butmustalsobepreparedinatimelymanner. Inthisrespect,the3-monthdeadlineforanappealhas consistentlybeenstrictlyappliedbyboththeLTAand the administrative jurisdictions alike.As a result, tax- payers that fail to meet such a deadline will in most cases irremediably lose their right to appeal against a tax assessment. In the case at hand, the discussions surrounding the handwritten signature of the rectified tax return, the identification of its author, and the confirmation of that person’s capacity to validly sign the tax return, alsohighlighttheimportanceofformalaspectsinpro- ceduralmattersandtheattentiontodetailrequiredin thisrespect(e.g.,signatoriesmustbeclearlyidentified by their name to avoid any issue, etc.). On the other hand, the Tribunal’s judgment some- whatmitigates certainaspects of the strictness of the procedure (provided that the formal aspects aremet and inparticular the aforementioned3-monthdead- line is respected) as the judges confirmed that a tax- payer is not legally required to submit its claim in a specific format – the only requirements are that it must be: 1. awrittendocument; 2. sufficiently explicit to clearly indicate that the tax- payer disagrees with the assessment of its situation and requests for it to be reassessed. The judge also reaffirmed that a taxpayer may still have theoption toprovideadditional documents at a later stage, after the submission of the claim (even monthslater,asinthepresentcase),providedthatthe Director has not yet finalized his review. In this re- spect,itmaybeworthnotingthattheDirector’ssilence effectively resulted in granting the taxpayer the right toindefinitelysupplementoramenditsclaim,thereby reestablishing a certain balance between the parties ( égalité des armes ). Finally, the judgment of 5 February 2025 looks very interestingandpositivefortaxpayersinthatitisacase of the filing of a rectified tax return within the 3 monthsfollowingprovisionaltaxassessmentsissued bytheLTAsubsequenttothefilingofaninitialtaxre- turn. Experience shows that it is oftenupon receiving taxassessments(whetherprovisionalorfinal)thatun- expectedoutcomes or tax burdens, arising frommis- takeseitherintheannualaccountsorinthetaxreturn itself,areidentified.TheLTAhavesometimesseemed reluctant to accept rectified tax returns in this context –thoughfiledinaccordancewiththeaboveprinciples – particularlywhen they result in a lower tax liability for the taxpayer concerned. While we may strongly encourage taxpayers to try to identify potential mis- takes at an early stage and in any case before a (first) taxreturnisfiled,itisreassuringtoseethatultimately mistakes can be corrected if done within the appro- priate timescales and with the necessary formal ele- ments respected–and that judges shoulduphold the rights of taxpayers in this context. 1) Provisionaltaxassessmentsissuedbasedon§100aAOaregenerated automatically,astheymerelyreproducethe informationprovided inthe correspondingtaxreturns.Theyalsoleavethedooropenforthetaxoffice toaudit,andpotentiallychallenge,thesubmittedtaxreturnswithina5- yearwhichstartsrunningonthe1 st Januarywhichfollowstheyeardur- ingwhichthetax liabilityarose. 2)UnofficialEnglishtranslationbytheauthors:“ Thetaxofficemay, subjecttosubsequentreview,assessthetaxonthebasisofthetaxreturn alone,withouthavingto indicatethegrounds(…)” 3) Unofficial English translation by the authors: “ When filing the administrative claim, the decision against which the legal remedy is di- rected should be specified. It should also be indicated to what extent the decision is being challenged and its annulment is being requested. Fur- thermore,thefactsservingasjustificationandtheevidenceshouldbepre- sented.” 4)UnofficialEnglishtranslationbytheauthors: “Insofarastheap- pellate authorities are responsible for reviewing factual circumstances, theyarerequiredto investigatethe factsexofficio.” 5)Couradministrative,9août2017,n°38981C Administrative Tribunal: Judgment clarifying interesting tax procedural aspects